Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3DS MAX/VRay Boxx Modeling/Rendering Workstation

Tags:
  • 3DS Max
  • Modeling Workstaion
  • Systems
  • Rendering Workstaion
Last response: in Systems
Share
December 30, 2013 3:13:06 PM

I am in the process of purchasing a new workstation and like what Boxx has to offer.

Please keep in mind I am knew to VRay so I'm not sure how GPU rendering works.

I need to be able to model in Revit and 3DS Max and render at the same time. I know I could hook up a computer or two and create a mini render farm but the computers I have are rather dated (2009) and thought I could get more performance with a dedicated GPU(s).

This is what I would consider my minimum requirement. This box gives me the ability to add 2 more GPUs

Boxx: 3DBOXX 4920 GPU

    Intelfi Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition Processor (3.6GHz) - (Six-Core)
    16GB DDR3-1866 (4 - 4GB DIMMS)
    NVIDIA Quadro K2000 2GB
    NVIDIA Quadro K5000 4GB
    240GB SSD SATA 6Gb/s


Now I know that I will be limited to 4GB of VRAM to render my images if I want to work on a model at the same time, so I guess that is where my question starts.

How do I figure out how much VRAM I will need to render my images?
Can anybody tell me why this may be a good or bad idea?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

More about : 3ds max vray boxx modeling rendering workstation

December 30, 2013 3:38:36 PM

Hello!
My PC have:
4930k @4.5
64GB Gskill 2400
780ti 3GB

I can render in GPU interior and exterior scenes for architecture, and 3 GB I think is sufficient. Don´t know exactly what happen wen I fill that Vram, but I could render some scenes with that Ram filled. May be some textures will not be rendered... don´t know.
But more Ram allways is better, You can load to Vram more complex scenes.

But Vray-RT don´t do final renders, there are a lot of effects or complex textures that can´t be rendered in GPU. It only is useful for high quality previews. The final render is by CPU in Vray.

For final renders by GPU you can use the Octane Render (GPU) or Arion Render (CPU+GPU), but the Vray textures are not compatibles. Octane have a conversor but not totaly functional.

Nvidia have a Quadro with 12GB (K6000?), but a Quadro GPU I think that is mor usefull for the process of modeling, because can manipulate more millions of polygons and items than a GTX for games. BUT a GTX780 is cheaper and the GPU renderers uses CUDAs, it doesent matter if is a Quadro or a Gamer GPU, only matters the number of CUDA cores. But if VRam is the problem.. go for a GPU with 12GB. In SLI the GPUs don´t add the RAM, if you have 10 GPUs whith 4GB, you only will have 4GB not 40 (the same data is loaded to all GPUs).
m
0
l
December 30, 2013 3:58:39 PM

Thanks for the reply aerocool.

So GPU rending is Vray-RT only? I'm glad I asked. I was under the impression that you could final render using the GPU. Do you know if this is also true for Vray 3.0?

The technicians at Boxx told me that I would be able to gang up GPUs and total their VRAM. Apparently this is a new feature being offer by nvidia. They are doing away with the GPU+Telsa=Maximus. Tesla will be marketed to technology labs that need the math computations on the GPU and the rest of us will be able to gang GPUs and add their VRAM - but all of this is useless if I cannot final renter on the K5000.

K6000 is out of my reach $$$.

So it looks like network rending is really the only way to go if I want to render and work at the same time...?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 30, 2013 4:14:13 PM

Well, I´m not sure but I think that Vray RT 3.0 will only do a little more effects, but will can´t do final renders...

Some people says that Arion can use RAM and VRAM, but at the moment I don´tested it.

Yes, K6000 is for big Design studys :p 

Sorry I can´t help more, my knowledge is still limited in this matter.
m
0
l
December 30, 2013 4:39:33 PM

You've been a big help! At least now I have a better idea as to which direction I need to head in.
m
0
l
January 1, 2014 6:27:31 PM

Interesting read:

http://www.boxxtech.com/blogandnews/is-gpu-rendering-re...

GPU rendering has been slowly advancing since arriving on the scene several years ago. While the technology can significantly redude render times, the widespread use of GPU-accelerated engines for final frame production rendering has yet to materialize. In this article, we'll take a look at how the landscape is set to change with Chaos Group's V-Ray 3.0 beta. We'll also talk about the recent launch of BOXX's unique GPU Edition workstations that can get you rendering faster than you’ve ever imagined.


Moving beyond a pre-viz tool

GPU rendering has always been a great tool for pre-visualization (and more recently) rapid visual feedback in the viewport. This particular use of GPU rendering is very important to many of your workflows. The ability to make lighting adjustments, shader corrections, and evaluate the look of animated objects in near real-time has lead to the creation of more complex and richer content.

Regarding final rendering, you'll often hear that "GPUs aren't ready" or "there are too many limitations to implement that into our pipeline." Both are valid concerns backed by valid reasons. That said, there is now good reason to re-examine a GPU-centric workflow.

What are the limitations?


Traditionally, if you were among the few who were implementing GPU rendering for production, you knew you had to live within certain restrictions and or implement specific work-arounds.

The most notable restrictions have been the GPU memory cap on the hardware side, and on the software side, the general lack of rendering features (motion blur, depth of field, render elements, etc.) that are required for final frame renderings.

Regarding the memory cap, the current highest capacity card on the market is the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 with a spacious 12GB frame buffer. This will allow those artists with larger datasets an opportunity to implement GPU rendering.

In terms of rendering features, V-Ray 3.0 RT includes some major upgrades. As many of you know, the ability to break up a rendering into specific parts, or passes, for use in the composting process, is a must have for many VFX studios. As you can see in the image above, you now have dozens of render elements that can be rendered on the GPU.

More in depth

We wanted to get more information on these new features so we got in touch with Vladimir Koylazov (Vlado) of Chaos Group to comment on this new release and the future of GPU rendering.

BOXX: Can you talk about the new features in V-Ray RT 3.0 and why you think this opens the door to final frame production rendering on the GPU?

Vlado: One of the main features that was missing for people to use V-Ray RT GPU for final frame renders was support for render elements. V-Ray RT 3.0 adds this capability, which means that it is now completely possible to render final frames.

BOXX: Aside from the memory limits of the hardware, what other obstacles stand in the way of widespread adaptation of GPU rendering for final frame production?

Vlado: The GPU is still very tricky to program; you can add one little piece of code and find that your GPU program now runs 30% slower. So you have to go back and debug this, and debugging the GPU is very tedious. This makes it difficult to add new features to the GPU. Also, for the moment there is no way for our customers to extent the GPU renderer with custom shaders, lights and geometric objects, like they can do with the CPU renderer.

BOXX: This article focuses on V-Ray RT 3.0 for 3ds Max. Are there any exciting features in the works that you can talk about, either for 3ds Max or other applications like Maya?

Vlado: We have implemented a number of improvements to the GPU renderer, including support for render elements, better noise reduction, raytraced viewports (in Maya) and others. We will continue to add new features throughout the development cycle of V-Ray 3.0.

BOXX: How do you see the future shaping up for GPU rendering? Given the new features in RT, do you see a point in the near future where the GPU completely replaces the CPU in the rendering process or are we there already?

Vlado: Many of our customers already use GPUs for rendering. However for more complicated pipelines with custom tools and shaders, the GPU does not yet have all the needed features. Further on, the CPUs (and our CPU code) are also improving. It will definitely be interesting to see how the hardware will develop in the future.

Conclusions

Depending on the complexities of your workflow, you might be able to implement GPU accelerated rendering for final frame production today. With the introduction of render elements in the software and large frame buffers on the hardware, there has never been a better time to utilize GPUs in production.

If your pipeline is such that GPU final frame rendering isn't an option, then you can still take advantage of the technology in the form of ray traced viewports and other pre-visualization tools.

Finally, if you need to decrease your render times but know that a GPU workflow is not an option, BOXX is the industry leader for CPU based rendering solutions. If you have questions, feel free to get in touch with us below.
m
0
l
January 2, 2014 4:30:13 AM

Yes, very interesting :) 

But that BOXX cost about 20000$ :S
m
0
l
!